Marks & Clerk accused over ‘secret commissions’ from IP referrals

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Marks & Clerk accused over ‘secret commissions’ from IP referrals

c0a6c8dd-7096-4a29-82d8-63ce4a28fe8bhigh-court-mw-600-comp.jpg

The IP firm faces a group-action claim that it profited from external renewals work without clients’ knowledge

An organisation representing mainly SMEs has filed a group-action lawsuit against Marks & Clerk alleging that the firm received “secret commissions” for referring intellectual property renewals work.

The particulars of claim was filed at the England and Wales High Court on Monday, April 12, by an organisation called Commission Recovery Limited (CRL). The allegations concern work that M&C referred to IP services provider CPA Global, which is not listed as a defendant.

The claim alleges that while clients agreed to CPA Global taking on their renewals work, they were unaware of the commissions being paid to M&C, and that these payments constituted unauthorised profit.

According to a CRL statement, these secret commissions have earned M&C between £2 million ($2.7 million) and £3 million per year in the UK – with the total figure likely to exceed £50 million.

A spokesperson for M&C told Managing IP that the firm categorically denies any wrongdoing.

“The claimant, CRL, and its founder are commercially driven and motivated by their own business interests. The allegations mischaracterise the work we undertake and our relationship with CPA. We will defend the claim vigorously.”

Peter Rouse, founder of CRL, said: “It is simply unacceptable that a firm like Marks & Clerk would develop a secret commissions scheme solely designed to line their own pockets while exploiting the very businesses they claim to serve.”

He added: “We want to provide a mechanism for affected businesses – who have been taken advantage of for years – to seek the justice and compensation they deserve.”

A spokesperson for Clarivate, which acquired CPA Global in 2020, said it “categorically and emphatically” denies any wrongdoing, adding: “Neither Clarivate nor CPA Global are named as defendants in the legal action.”

The claim has been brought as a representative action on behalf of all current and former clients of M&C and its predecessor practices. Unlike some group-action claims where parties can choose to join, this is an opt-out claim. Potentially affected claimants do not need to join or sign up.

The claim comes five years after CPA Global itself was sued for allegedly overcharging for foreign patent renewal fees. The 2016 class-action lawsuit was filed in the US by medical diagnostic company Run Them Sweet. That case was later settled.

 

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Attorneys explain why there are early signs that the US Supreme Court could rule in favour of ISP Cox in a copyright dispute
A swathe of UPC-related hires suggests firms are taking the forum seriously, as questions over the transitional stage begin
A win for Nintendo in China and King & Spalding hiring a prominent patent litigator were also among the top talking points
Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard, who live-reported on the seminal dispute, unpicks the trials and tribulations of the case and considers its impact
Attorneys predict how Lululemon’s trade dress and design patent suit against Costco could play out
Lawyers at Linklaters analyse some of the key UPC trends so far, and look ahead to life beyond the transition period
David Rodrigues, who previously worked at an IP boutique, said he may become more involved in transactional work at his new firm
Indian smartphone maker Lava must pay $2.3 million as a security deposit for past sales, as its dispute with Dolby over audio coding SEPs plays out
Powell Gilbert’s opening in Düsseldorf, complete with a new partner hire, continues this summer’s trend of UPC-related lateral movement
IP leaders at Brandsmiths and Bird & Bird, who were on opposing sides at the UK Supreme Court in Iconix v Dream Pairs, unpick the landmark case and its ramifications
Gift this article